[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Thank you both very much.

[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
Madam Clerk, would you like to call the last case?

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
Enrae Hurst-Cassel, Tracy Lee Hurst-Cassel appellant appearing pro se, Andrew J. Mase appearing for appellee.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:18] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:00:18] Speaker 02:
Hurst-Cassel, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
About four minutes, Your Honor.

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
Four minutes.

[00:00:24] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:00:24] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
Please proceed.

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
Can you see me?

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
Because I can't see me.

[00:00:29] Speaker 02:
Uh, we can see your face is the bottom of your face is a little bit cut off, but we can see you.

[00:00:35] Speaker 02:
No, go the other way.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
There you go.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
Perfect.

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:00:39] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
Your Honours, my name is Tracy Lee Hurst-Castle.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
Because I'm an ADA protected pro se litigant with cognitive disabilities, I have prepared a written statement so I can stay organized and communicate my arguments clearly and effectively.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
I respectfully ask the panel to allow me to read from this prepared statement to ensure that I have a fair and meaningful opportunity to be heard.

[00:01:10] Speaker 01:
My formal attorney, I appear in pro se not by choice, but by necessity.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
My formal attorney who had represented me in this decade-long matter passed away in 2018.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
Shortly afterward, I was in a serious car accident and doctors discovered a brain tumor requiring urgent surgery.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
Multiple

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
Neurosurgeries followed, leaving me with lasting neurological and cognitive disabilities.

[00:01:39] Speaker 01:
In 2023, I was forced to file Chapter 11 in good faith due to the Weldonville law firm's unethical and aggressive collection practices, which took advantage of my vulnerable and cognitively impaired state.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
I was initially represented by attorney Mr. Yarmy,

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
who later withdrew under false pretenses after procedural errors that left me vulnerable and forced me to represent myself.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
After his ritual, Judge Breaker imposed heightened procedural demands on me despite my documented disabilities.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
I then sought new counsel but was unable to retain any representation despite numerous consultations because the law firm

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
had already inserted itself into related litigation and created widespread conflicts.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
That firm filed a false proof of claim supported by fabricated invoices and an altered enforceable fee agreement purporting to authorize a trial fee that never existed.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
Exploiting my cognitive disability, its own supporting documents referenced my medical malpractice cases, signing it an internal invoice number and balance,

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
while simultaneously denying it had ever undertaken that case.

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
When I objected, the firm retaliated through aggressive collection efforts and weaponized the judicial system in the same manner that Long-Term Capital, Roman numeral number six, is doing here.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
It was this discovery of fraudulent billing, fabricated claim documents, and misuse of the courts

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
that compelled me to file the 2023 Chapter 11 in good faith to protect my estate and preserve my rights.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
In 2024, I was again forced to file a Chapter 11 petition pro se because of the Welderfeld's ongoing aggressive litigation tactics and a scheduled trustee sale on my property.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
I filed this case to protect my home, and through that filing, I successfully stopped the trustee sale.

[00:03:41] Speaker 01:
My actions were not to delay or abuse the system, but to preserve my property while continuing to challenge the unlawful conduct of parties acting without standing.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
Therefore, I am an ADA protected litigant entitled to meaningful access

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
to courts under Title II of the American Disabilities Act 42 USC 12132 as affirmed in Tennessee versus Lane 2004.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
Number one, the procedural due process violation FRBP 9104E.

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
This appeal arises from an interim state relief order entered without jurisdiction, without findings, and without the evidentiary hearing required by

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
FRBP9014E, at the January 10th, 2025 hearing, Judge Breaker stated, quote, Ms.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
Hurst-Cassel, I understand you've requested an evidentiary hearing, but we don't need one to see what's going on here.

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
Page five, one, one through two.

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
He also stated, there is no further need for an evidentiary hearing.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
The record speaks for itself.

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
Those words prove the violation of Rule 9014e requires that when material facts are disputed, the testimony of witnesses shall be taken into some manner as in an adversary proceeding.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
The refusal to hear evidence while making credibility findings and calling me a 15-year schemer violated that rule and the Fifth Amendment due process clause.

[00:05:30] Speaker 01:
Number two, no written findings

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
F R C P five to a and.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
After denying a hearing, the court refused to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
I filed a rule 52A1 request so an appellant record could exist.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
The court denied it, citing a local rule to avoid findings.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
The Ninth Circuit holds findings are mandatory when jurisdictional credibility is at issue.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
United States versus

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
4.85 acres of land, Ninth Circuit, 2008.

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
In Re-Glass, Ninth Circuit, 1995, without findings, review is impossible and remand required.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
Number three, factual clarification, no pattern of abuse or bad faith.

[00:06:25] Speaker 01:
Judge Breaker's repeated statements that I am a schemer

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
or serial filer are factually false.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
I have stopped only one trustee sale in 2010, represented by counsel.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
That case was dismissed without prejudice.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
My next bankruptcy was in 2012, also through counsel and dismissed without prejudice.

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
I did not file any bankruptcy in 2013, as he had stated.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
It had been over 10 years before I filed the 2023 case.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
And at that time, the property was not in foreclosure.

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
The only sale I stopped in this decade was September 18, 2024 sale, after years of unlawful foreclosure attempts by entities lacking standings.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
These facts disprove any suggestion of a scheme to delay under 11 USC 362 D and 4.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
in rem relief requires clear evidence of a scheme to hinder or delay creditors evidence that simply does not exist here in re Chavez back 9th circuit may 2025 and in re Ellis

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
Ninth Circuit, 1985, make clear that labeling a debtor abusive without factual hearing violates the due process.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
Number four, standing in jurisdiction absent, lack of proof of ownership, standing as jurisdictional, steel company versus citizens of better environment, 1998, and in

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
Ville BAP9 2011.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
In Edwards BAP9 2011, the movement must show a colorable right to enforce the note when the motion is filed.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
Long-term

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
Roman number 6, and I call it Roman number 6 because they also use Roman number 4 in other documents, produced no proof of ownership.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
November 15, 2024, Eternity Stoltzman filed the interim motion with that of

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
formal appearance.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
December 11th, Attorney Chad Wade from ZBS Law filed proof of claim number eight, leaving question number two, has this claim been acquired from someone else?

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
He left that blank.

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
December 16th, 2024, at hearing

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
At hearing five days later, I stated my intent to object.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
The court acknowledged it, but ruled anyway.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
Prior to the 2023 case, another long-term attorney filed proof of claim number 11, answering no to that same ownership question.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
These contradictory claims proved standing was unresolved because standing must exist at filing.

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
No later the court lacked jurisdiction.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
Espinoza

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
2010 confirms orders entered without jurisdiction are void ab initio.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
Number five, fraud upon the court, Pavlikis, affidavit and unauthorized Sables filings.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
Attorney Stoltzman relied on an affidavit by Konstantin Pakloves claiming he held the note.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
He held the note, impossible since the loan was securitized in 2007 while MU PRM Trust that closed on July 30th, 2007.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
He refused to pursue affidavit constituting fraud on the court under Hazel Atlas Glass Company versus Hartford Empire Company and in

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
We've in revandered pack of this then recorded an unauthorized substitution of trustee naming Sables LC, which though unlicensed issued a May 2024 notice of.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
Default a notice of sale and this is after my bankruptcy was dismissed in the two thousand twenty three bankruptcy was dismissed.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
That no, I believe is dismissed in two thousand three of November this transpired afterwards and on and and on May eight.

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
What?

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
a notice of default, a notice of sale, and on May 8th, a corrective deed trust naming itself both grantee and owner while purporting to convey the property due to long-term Roman number six as grantor.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
These acts violate NRS 107.028, 107.080, 107.0821 and NAC 645.300 under Shadowwood HOA versus Bank of New York Mellon,

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
Nevada 2016, sales violating these mandatory statutes.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
Reliance on stale litigation in disregard of fabricated evidence, Judge Breaker refused to examine the operative 2022-25 record and instead relied on stale judicial notices from Castle v. Penny Mac December 24, 2020, a case I won for trespass.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
At the same time, he ignored dozens of recorded documents I submitted from the Clark County Recorder's Office, proving that multiple assignments, substitutions, and trustees recorded between April 22 and the present were fabricated and legally impossible.

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
Each document contained conflicting beneficiaries, inconsistencies, signatures, and dates that divide the chain of title, yet the

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
Court refused to acknowledge them by disregarding this documentary evidence while adopting opposing counsel's outdated judicial notices.

[00:11:53] Speaker 01:
The Bankruptcy Court abdicated its duly to assess truth in the current record regarding her 1992, requires the court to evaluate the full and current record failing to do so here was a denial of due process and abuse of discretion.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
Hirst-Castle, I just want to let you know you're about three and a half minutes left if you want to.

[00:12:16] Speaker 02:
You can continue if you want.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
I'm going to just finish because it's all included.

[00:12:20] Speaker 02:
Okay, that's fine.

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
Go ahead.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
Sorry.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
Consequences and ongoing prejudice.

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
The Voight and Rem Order produced a foreclosure on April 4, 2025 without the re-notice required by NRS 107.0821b and May 8,

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
2025 corrective deed.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
Naming Sables as both grantee and owner, those acts spawn unlawful evictions and deprive me of protected estate property under shadow woods such as a sale is void and title must be restored to January 9.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
New evidence ignored on January 8.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
January 8th, I filed an investigative findings, Joe Esquivel and William McCaffrey and FCI's notice of error response proving long-term 6 lacks any lawful claim.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
Judge Spreaker dismissed the evidence as too late, violating FRCP 59E, 60B, and FRP 9023 and 94, which require consideration of newly

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
discovered evidence.

[00:13:23] Speaker 01:
I filed a motion for reconsideration after the 31 hearing.

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
I filed a motion detailing the court's lack of jurisdiction absent, and there again I was not afforded an evidentiary hearing.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
The continuing harm multiple courts relying on afford order because judge breakers ruling I've been forced to defend myself outside the bankruptcy forum in multiple ongoing state and federal cases where other judges have adopted his findings where valid determinations of ownership those

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
courts have used the interim order to block me from presenting the true facts about the fabricated chain of title and long-term lack of standing.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
The continued reliance on board orders has stripped me of property rights and discovery and meaningful forum under Espinoza and Center's structural due process violations.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
Orders void for lack of standing jurisdiction and fraud.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
The January 10th and January 31st orders are voided ab initio.

[00:14:21] Speaker 01:
Jurisdiction cannot exist without proving standing at filing

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
Steele Edwards order entered without jurisdiction to our void under Espinoza.

[00:14:32] Speaker 01:
I request a lack of standing use of unlicensed agents, fabricated filings in the Clark County Recorder's Office and lines on false affidavits renders null and void.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
I ask the panel to vacate the January 10th and 30th

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
first orders and any other orders thereafter pertaining to long-term false claims.

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
Declare void the fourth foreclosure, May 8 deed and evictions.

[00:15:01] Speaker 01:
Restore title to January 9, 2025.

[00:15:04] Speaker 01:
Remand for a full evidentiary hearing before a different judge with findings under FRP9014E and FRP52A and order production of the original note and pack of his

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
David for including the complete chain of title for and those findings.

[00:15:24] Speaker 01:
to be authenticated.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
In your honors, the Pellies will argue that any errors were harmless, that I was heard, and that this case is merely another delay, but the record tells a different story.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
There was never a hearing where evidence was taken.

[00:15:39] Speaker 01:
There was no written findings explaining the court's reasoning, and there was no proof of standing, only declarations, contradictory proof of claims, and false affidavit that has never been produced.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
nor has the complete chain of title today because of this.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
Your time is up, but if you want to make a completing sentence, go ahead.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
Okay, Your Honours, I stand here not as a lawyer, but as a person who has spent years fighting simply to be heard.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
All I ask is for same fairness and every litigate is promised a hearing based on evidence before a neutral judge and a chance to restore what was unlawfully taken.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
The record is clear.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
Standing was never proven.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
Just jurisdiction was absent.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
Fraud was presented to the court and ignored and due process was denied.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much, Mr. Esquistal.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
Mr. Mase.

[00:16:39] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
My name is Andrew Mase.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
I represent the Appellee Long-Term Capital Partnership 6 in this appeal.

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
And I'm going to focus my argument this morning on the relevant appellate standard, which is abuse of discretion over the NREM D4 order.

[00:16:59] Speaker 03:
And I think where I would

[00:17:02] Speaker 03:
urge the court to really direct its inquiry outside of the briefing and in the record is the oral hearing held by Judge Spraker, which is contained in Ms.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
Hearst Castle's Exhibit A. And I think Judge Spraker, he did the correct analysis, not only looking at the five bankruptcy cases, and he commented that five bankruptcy cases over a long period of time, that's not sufficient evidence in order, in and of itself, to justify default relief.

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
But it's under the context and with the acknowledgement of the two failed state court cases that Ms.

[00:17:39] Speaker 03:
Hurst-Castle brought unsuccessfully in Nevada State Court.

[00:17:45] Speaker 03:
All judgments and appeals have been final and dismissed.

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
And the conclusion after consideration of all of that evidence contained in the record and submitted to the court is that the ongoing bankruptcies are part of a scheme to delay the creditor

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
It does obviously include multiple bankruptcies and that the relief is warranted.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
I don't think that either in the briefing or

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
upon even a de novo review of the record, which isn't the standard here, though, that you'd find any basis to believe the judge-breaker would have been off base, either in using an incorrect standard, misapplying the correct standard, or making illogical factual findings based on the materials in the record.

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
It's discussed in my brief, and so I'm not going to belabor the point, but as to the denial of an evidentiary hearing, what appellant fails to mention or adequately explain is, what are the disputed facts that would have warranted an evidentiary hearing?

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
I think Judge Spraker makes it clear that he only relied, it's not really, he only relied on the dates of filings, the dates of dismissals, the other orders that are now final.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
in addition to the foreclosure timeline over the years.

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
I do not have much more to offer the panel.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
I yield my time unless there are questions.

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
I don't have any questions.

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
Judge Corbett or Judge Neiman?

[00:19:32] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:19:32] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:19:33] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
All right, then.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much, Mr. Mase.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
And that's going to conclude the argument on this matter today since Ms.

[00:19:42] Speaker 02:
Hirst-Castle used up her entire 15 minutes of time.

[00:19:46] Speaker 02:
So thank you both very much.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
This matter is submitted.

[00:19:49] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
And I think that's the end of our calendar, Madam Clerk.

[00:19:55] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:19:55] Speaker 02:
Court is in recess.

[00:19:57] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:19:57] Speaker 02:
Thank you.